Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Fox News"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's always never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose.
Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever thought about what such a policy meant?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be written off...
It means these slimy deceitful Albions expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
To hell with them.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy..."
Me: ROFL
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary lines drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that "faraway empires" would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? It looks very interesting. Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies...
How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets they have. Want some..."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up. Kick them out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1